NT Wright v The Gospel (Part 2)

I realise it is easy to quote Wright in support of Penal Substitution in some of his earlier writings. But there are two things worth noting. One is that Wright himself confesses to having a theology that has changed over the years (ie moving from the old perspective on Paul to the new perspective). Secondly, that like emergents, Wright sometimes holds to a terminology but changes the definition. This is evident in Wright's support of Steve Chalke's book (The Lost Message of Jesus) and his refusal to retract that support and all the while claiming to hold to Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). Here is how Wright responded to calls for him to retract his endorsement for "The Lost Message of Jesus":

NT Wright And Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Steve Chalke's new book is rooted on good scholarship, but its clear, punchy style makes it accessible to anyone and everyone. Its message is stark and exciting: Jesus of Nazareth was far more challenging in his own day, and remains far more relevant to ours, than the church has dared to believe, let alone preach. Part of that was quoted prominently on the front cover. I stand by every word I wrote. Imagine my puzzlement, then, when I heard that a great storm had broken out because 'Steve Chalke has denied substitutionary atonement' . . .

And what did Steve Chalke say that was so controversial?

"The fact is that the cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse - a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the Church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a concept stands in total contradiction to the statement that "God is Love". If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus' own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil." (p182 The Lost Message of Jesus)

Wright continues:

Now, to be frank, I cannot tell, from this paragraph alone, which of two things Steve means. You could take the paragraph to mean (a) on the cross, as an expression of God's love, Jesus took into and upon himself the full force of all the evil around him, in the knowledge that if he bore it we would not have to; but this, which amounts to a form of penal substitution, is quite different from other forms of penal substitution, such as the mediaeval model of a vengeful father being placated by an act of gratuitous violence against his innocent son. In other words, there are many models of penal substitution, and the vengeful-father-and-innocent-son story is at best a caricature of the true one. Or you could take the paragraph to mean (b) because the cross is an expression of God's love, there can be no idea of penal substitution at all, because if there were it would necessarily mean the vengeful-father-and-innocent-son story, and that cannot be right.

Clearly, Steve's critics have taken him to mean (b), as I think it is clear Jeffrey John and several others intend. I cannot now remember what I thought when I read the book four years ago and wrote my commendation, but I think, since I had been following the argument through in the light of the arguments I myself have advanced, frequently and at length, about Jesus' death and his own understanding of it, that I must have assumed he meant (a). I have now had a good conversation with Steve about the whole subject and clarified that my initial understanding was correct: he does indeed mean (a). The book, after all, wasn't about atonement as such, so he didn't spell out his view of the cross in detail; and it is his experience that the word 'penal' has put off so many people, with its image of a violent, angry and malevolent God, that he has decided not to use it. But the reality that I and others refer to when we use the phrase 'penal substitution' is not in doubt, for Steve any more than for me. 'There is therefore now no condemnation' in Romans 8.1 is explained by the fact, as in Romans 8.3, that God condemned sin in the flesh of his Son: he bore sin's condemnation in his body, so we don't bear it. That, I take it, is the heart of what the best sort of 'penal substitution' theory is trying to say, and Steve is fully happy with it. And this leads to the key point: there are several forms of the doctrine of penal substitution, and some are more biblical than others. (http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2007/20070423wright.cfm?doc=205)

The real problem here is that both models, (a) and (b), are not PSA. The caricature (a vengeful father being placated by an act of gratuitous violence against his innocent son) Wright refers to is his own caricature. That is not what the Macarthurs, Pipers, and Sprouls of today are preaching. Wright's vague "forces of evil" never quite get specified. The issues of personal guilt, God's specific wrath aimed against guilty individuals, and Christ's love demonstrated as a substitute, is ignored in Wright's version whereas they are beautifully harmonized in the reformed understanding. This probably explains why Wright, when singing "In Christ Alone", changes the line "the wrath of God was satisfied" to "the love of God was satisfied". So much for authorial intent! There is a constant theme of absence when Wright discusses the Gospel and it makes sense in the light of his understanding of PSA. Wright believes that PSA must submit within the Christus Victor model of the atonement. Wright gets this back to front - and it also confirms that Wright holds to a different/wrong version of PSA if it is not the transcendant theory from which all others flow and find their meaning. This view again reveals Wright's faulty understanding - "it is only in Penal substitution that God must punish evil in order for His defeat of Satan to be consistent with His rightoeusness" (p142 Pierced for Our Transgressions).

What surprises me is that people focus only on the "cosmic child abuse" quote in Chalke's book. Here is a little more revelation of Chalke's view of the Gospel:

People are desperate for a message that they can buy into, that they can see will make a difference to them and to the world in which they live. The truth is that you can't engender a sense of lostness or need into people simply by pointing out that they are sinners. It just doesn't work. (p117-118 The Lost Message of Jesus).

So it would seem that they believe there are good pragmatic grounds for rejecting PSA.

But Wright's gross error on PSA, and the Gospel continue to manifest in his understanding of imputation which I will discuss in Wednesday's post.

Go On To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1

Coming Soon - The John Piper And Rick Warren Controversy

Dear readers, just so you know, I don't live under a rock or in a cave. When John Piper invited Rick Warren to be a keynote speaker at the 2010 Desiring God Conference, we could feel the explosion in the blogosphere from as far away as Denmark. I have had numerous requests to comment, but have refrained thus far out of my immense love for, and respect of, John Piper and his three decades of faithful labor in the Gospel.

My views on Rick Warren's theology and modus operandi are no secret. They are well documented on this blog. You are welcome to click on the "Rick Warren" label beneath this post and access all previous posts concerning him. But for now I would ask that we would operate out of zeal for avoiding bringing reproach on Christ's Name, out of zeal for the furtherance of the Gospel, and out of love for John Piper's ministry which has abundantly blessed many of us. What I would ask is that you watch the video below and privately express your concerns to Dr Piper by sending your e-mails to mail@desiringGod.org.



I also highly recommend the April 1st - hour 1 podcast of Wretched Radio where I think Todd Friel gives a very thoughtful and balanced overview of what has transpired. Stay tuned - although I am waiting for some more dust to settle, I will soon be posting on this issue and discussing it in more detail. Until then Christian brothers and sisters, remember that there can be a difference between sinfulness and stupidity - I should know, I have considerable experience in both camps!

Why NT Wright Is Wrong

NT Wright, the Bishop of Durham, enjoys tremendous popularity among "thinking Christians". He is even getting a foothold in the secular bookstores, as evidenced by finding his latest book on display at the front of a Barnes and Noble store I recently visited. This has prompted me to write a post about him as he has not been previously discussed on this blog.

It is true that Wright's landmark book "The Resurrection of the Son of God" is widely recognized as an outstanding defense of Christ's bodily resurrection. Getting the resurrection right seems to have opened a lot of people's receptivity to Wright's subsequent books where he discusses the cross, justification, and penal substitutionary atonement (Wright even endorsed Steve Chalkes book in which Chalke described the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement as "cosmic child abuse"). Many reformed theologians have been greatly disturbed by the theology that NT Wright's subsequent works have revealed. It may well be that Wright's scholarly defense of the resurrection turns out to be a scholarly trojan horse concealing destructive heresies.

At the heart of Wright's many troubling ideas lies his view of the doctrine of justification, particularly the component of imputed righteousness. Over and over again, Wright attacks the classic Reformed and biblical doctrine that the righteousness of Christ is imputed, or reckoned, to the sinner's account, and it is on the ground of Christ's righteousness alone that we obtain our righteous standing before God. Wright says:

If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom . . . If we leave the notion of 'righteousness' as a law-court metaphor only, as so many have done in the past, this gives the impression of a legal transaction, a cold piece of business, almost a trick of thought performed by a God who is logical and correct but hardly one we would want to worship (p98 What St Paul Really Said).

Phil Johnson responded to these exact comments in a sermon by saying "Well, I, for one, am quite happy to worship a God who justifies the ungodly and who is both just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus."

John Macarthur has this to say about the importance of getting imputation right:

The cornerstone of justification is the reckoning of righteousness to the believer's account. This is the truth that sets Christian doctrine apart from every form of false religion. We call it "imputed righteousness". Apart from it salvation is utterly impossible (p197 The Gospel According to Jesus).

Here is an excerpt from an interview RC Sproul had with Michael Horton discussing the theology of N.T. Wright.

[Q] Considering Bishop N.T. Wright’s doctrine of justification, do you believe he is teaching another gospel?

[A] J.I. Packer has a great line: Tom Wright foregrounds what the Bible backgrounds, and backgrounds what the Bible foregrounds–but Wright does more than that; he denies a crucial component of justification, namely imputation. So, in answer to your question, yes–in denying imputation, Wright is preaching another gospel.

There’s a kind of fundamentalist approach to Scripture that Tom Wright seems to want to confront. And while he does a wonderful job of highlighting the fact that justification in Paul’s writings is understood within a broader redemptive-historical framework, something not all presentations and defenses of justification do, he is not confronting historic Reformed theology. Reformed theology always has understood justification within a broader redemptive-historical framework. If he were to read the Reformers and more recent Reformed writers, such as Geerhardus Vos and Herman Ridderbos, he would clearly see that justification is placed in its proper context with the believer’s union with Christ and within the whole history of redemption. Reformed writers speak of Paul’s treatment of justification being inseparable from the inclusion of the Gentiles. Then, when you read Tom Wright he makes it seem as if he’s the first person who saw these emphases of Paul, and that everyone else before him sort of taught the four spiritual laws. It’s an incredibly naïve view.

I know Tom Wright–not well, but we had a few conversations in my Oxford days; we’ve gone back and forth about these issues, and he simply doesn’t know historical theology. He’ll actually admit that when you catch him at a few points; he’ll say something along the lines of “well this really isn’t my area of expertise.” Well, if your thesis is that the Reformation fundamentally misunderstood Paul, it better be your area of expertise to at least know what the Reformers said–and he doesn’t. So, Wright creates a straw man. And the people who are swayed by him, who are enamored of him, are also in many cases ignorant of what the Reformers actually taught, what Reformed theology has taught on these matters. And let me offer an impassioned plea to folks: There are Reformed presentations of the doctrine of justification that include some of the very salient points that Tom Wright has raised and incorporated, without denying the very crucial component of imputation as Tom Wright does. Without imputation, justification isn’t good news. When he says that the Gospel is “Jesus is Lord,” I reply, there are many passages that tell me “Jesus is Lord” isn’t good news. There are many passages that tell me “Jesus is Lord” means to a whole lot of people “the great Avenger on the white horse with a sword in His hand, bringing the last judgment.” “Jesus is Lord” means that He will be your judge. On Mars Hill in Athens, Paul said there is a judgment coming, a last judgment coming, and God has given proof of this to everyone by raising Jesus from the dead. So Jesus is Lord is not necessarily good news. Only when God assures me that I am in Christ by grace alone through faith alone and kept by grace is the announcement “Jesus is Lord” good news rather than the worst possible news (online source).

It is worth noting that many false teachers survive on the basis of their lack of clarity. We tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when they speak in a foggy and unclear manner. NT Wright has become (unwittingly perhaps) the Mr Miyagi of the emergent movement for this reason. Wright communicates a different gospel in a way that is obscure enough not to be pinned down outside of orthodoxy. He is the master of answering questions by cutting a short story long and burying the initial question in the process. With this in mind, I have found a good rule of thumb when choosing our feeding grounds for Christian teaching. Sound biblical teachers are aways explicitly clear about the fundamental truths of the Christian faith. Choose feeding grounds that communicate the Gospel faithfully, accurately, and clearly.

The Anatomy Of The Gospel (Part 6)

PILLAR 4 – THE WORK OF CHRIST

I must say from the outset that I am incapable of discussing this subject and doing it justice. It goes so far beyond my sinful flesh and tiny brain. I cling to the hope that God will be glorified in my human weakness.

To be right with God we need pardon for our sin. As impossible as that is we also need something else. We need righteousness to enter into eternal life and God’s presence. Take a look at Proverbs 17:15. Just stop and meditate on this for a moment.

He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD (Proverbs 17:15).

This verse reveals the heart of the problem. If God pardons a sinner He becomes an abomination. This is why the Gospel is not about us telling God we’re sorry and being forgiven. God is bound by His law to punish sin. Do you see this problem?
There was only one way and that is why He is the only way!

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).

And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12)

Now the only way that God can forgive sinful men is if God who made the law and God who demands satisfaction, if He Himself comes down, and pays the penalty. This is why God became a man, Jesus Christ, and fulfilled the whole law. So that He could be condemned as a just man, in order that the wicked could be justified. Here is where we find God’s love.

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

John Macarthur comments on this verse:

As Christ was not a sinner, but was treated as if He were, so believers who have not yet been made righteous are treated as if they were righteous.

Here we see what we call imputation. Jesus takes our punishment and credits us with His righteousness. The great exchange in order that we may inherit eternal life. This righteousness is a legal statement, not an injection of righteousness as the Catholics teach. Your righteousness is a credit to your account – something that you can never take credit for. You don’t become a better man. You become a bad man saved by a good God. Macarthur continues:

Christ bore their sins so that they could bear His righteousness. God treated Him as if He committed believers’ sins, and treats believers as if they did only the righteous deeds of the sinless Son of God.

This doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement is under continual attack today. There are those who prefer to downplay penal substitutionary atonement to emphasize
1. Christ defeating the forces of darkness or;
2. Christ identifying with us and our suffering by going to the cross.

These ideas are the most popular in Denmark right now. How often do you hear Jesus referred to as an example to follow. While there is an element of truth to these ideas:

1. Hebrews tells us (Heb 2:17) that Jesus is a compassionate intercessor having tasted of the human experience.
2. Jesus did come to destroy the works of the devil (I John 3:8).

But these ideas fall so far short of what the good news really is. The major reason Jesus came, to bring salvation, was because He is not like anybody and nobody can really be like Him. No one could keep the law, and no one could suffer God’s wrath. There are some ways in which I try to follow Jesus’ example but I am a hundred times more greatful that He fulfilled the law that I had broken and suffered the punishment that I deserve. There is the real good news.

There are also those within the emergent movement who totally deny Penal Substitutionary Atonement altogether. Steve Chalke calls Penal Substitutionary Atonement a form of cosmic child abuse:

... a form of cosmic child abuse - a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. (The Lost Message Of Jesus p182)

And Brian McLaren had these shocking words to say . . .



The root of all these attacks on this doctrine lies in the earlier mentioned pillar 2 – the depravity of man. We live in a culture that is therapeutic and egotistical. A culture that inflates people’s self esteem, but never lays blame at anyone's feet. And if churches want to accommodate those people, they can try and do it by getting rid of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Because to teach that you have to teach why Christ had to take punishment that we deserve which, in turn, means that you have to present man as a criminal and not a victim.

Did you ever wake up in the morning and wonder “where did all the stars go?” Did they all just disappear? No – but we only ever see them shining in their glory against the background of a dark night sky. And the cross of Jesus Christ shines in its glory against the dark background of our sin against Him – and it was only when God helped me to see the awful darkness of my sin against Him that I could start to see the depth of His love for me in sending Jesus Christ.

What was the one thing Jesus feared? It wasn’t the Jews – he fearlessly humiliated them in public. It wasn’t the Romans – our Lord looked Pilate square in the eye and told him that the only reason the Roman Governor had any power over God in flesh was because God had given him that power for that moment (John 19:11). Jesus did not fear Satan for he overcame and rebuked him in the wilderness. What was the only thing that Jesus feared - when he prayed in the garden. It was the cup, the cup of God’s wrath (Luke 22:42). How terrifying must God’s wrath be if our Lord asked for another way. How serious must God’s Holiness and man’s sinfulness be if this was the only way that payment could be made.

We must preach the cross as the place where the perfect righteous Lamb of God drank the cup of God’s wrath in our place. The key word in this is “propitiation”. Both John and Paul speak of it.

And are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins (Romans 3:24-25).

The word propitiation means a “sacrifice that takes away sin and satisfies wrath” (James White, The God Who Justifies, p194). This is wonderful news and something that true Christians get excited about. God no longer has wrath aimed at those who he saves because Christ has taken it in their place.

And the resurrection is the proof of God’s satisfaction with Christ’s payment. Isn’t it great to hope in a resurrection body (Romans 4:24-25)?



Go On To Part 7
Go Back To Part 5
Go Back To Part 1
Click Here To Read A Biblical Defence Of Pillar 4